Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/13/2022 4:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
 wrote:


/> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
identically, as would any supervening mental states./


Yes.

 > /However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple
different physical states can give rise to the same mental state./


True, and in that situation things would not be reversible; a cellular 
automation like Conway's LIFE is not reversible and for the same 
reason. Something can be 100% deterministic in the forward time 
dimension but not in the backward time dimension, but so far at least 
nobody has any experimental evidence that fundamental physics has that 
property, fundamental physics can't explain why you can't unscramble 
an egg, you need more than the laws of physics to explain that you 
need to invoke initial conditions. That situation could change if some 
of Stephen Wolfram's ideas turn out to be correct, but so far there is 
no evidence that they are.


 > /The different physical states may then evolve differently
giving different subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this
would mean that your next mental state is undetermined. /


You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you 
actually do it because sometimes you change your mind at the last 
second, but there is nothing profound or mystical in that, a two 
dollar calculator doesn't know what it's gonna put up on its screen 
when you type in 2+2 until it has finish the calculation.


/> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to
propose a mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined
world. I don’t think that works because indeterminacy is not a
good basis for free will (the main problem with libertarian free
will), but it is an interesting idea nonetheless./


I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will 
have gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking 
himself what the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never 
heard a philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either 
circular or just pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before 
philosophers start talking about whether human beings have a certain 
property they first make clear what that property is, and only after 
that would it be appropriate to discuss if humans happen to have that 
property or not.  I don't demand that the definition be perfect but I 
don't think it's too much to ask that they give me at least a general 
idea of approximately what the hell they're talking about when they 
say "free will".


Daniel Dennett says it is making choices based on who you are: your 
education, experience, genetics, perspective,...  And that's all the 
"free will" worth having.


Brent



John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 



fws


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3tjgdgN5tmHsZxmsVHNctt1rneKMhtGUF-q53Lqu0cTg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c8a76f6d-253d-96aa-022f-0f9524d61b43%40gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 21:53, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> *> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
>> identically, as would any supervening mental states.*
>
>
> Yes.
>
>  > *However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different
>> physical states can give rise to the same mental state.*
>
>
> True, and in that situation things would not be reversible; a cellular
> automation like Conway's LIFE is not reversible and for the same reason.
> Something can be 100% deterministic in the forward time dimension but not
> in the backward time dimension, but so far at least nobody has any
> experimental evidence that fundamental physics has that property,
> fundamental physics can't explain why you can't unscramble an egg, you need
> more than the laws of physics to explain that you need to invoke initial
> conditions. That situation could change if some of Stephen Wolfram's ideas
> turn out to be correct, but so far there is no evidence that they are.
>
>  > *The different physical states may then evolve differently giving
>> different subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this would mean that your
>> next mental state is undetermined. *
>
>
> You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do
> it because sometimes you change your mind at the last second, but there is
> nothing profound or mystical in that, a two dollar calculator doesn't know
> what it's gonna put up on its screen when you type in 2+2 until it has
> finish the calculation.
>
> *> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a
>> mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think
>> that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the
>> main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea
>> nonetheless.*
>
>
> I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will have
> gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking himself what
> the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never heard a
> philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either circular or just
> pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before philosophers start
> talking about whether human beings have a certain property they first make
> clear what that property is, and only after that would it be appropriate to
> discuss if humans happen to have that property or not.  I don't demand that
> the definition be perfect but I don't think it's too much to ask that they
> give me at least a general idea of approximately what the hell they're
> talking about when they say "free will".
>

Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they think
free will and determinism are compatible. Compatibilists say that you act
freely if you do so according to your preferences rather than being coerced
or under abnormal influence such as psychotic illness. This is the
layperson’s definition of freedom and the definition used to establish
legal responsibility in court. Incompatibilists, on the other hand, worry
that even if you are doing what you want, it isn’t really free if your
actions are determined by prior events. Compatibilists think this is
absurd, because if your actions aren’t determined, they are random, and why
would anyone equate freedom with their actions being random?

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXumdTgsyfJbvNNPHobFM5JrLDwUEMm7rQ0Qg407KMw6g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

"The structure of all computations". Lets go physicalist even on this one. 
Where does such a mechanism exist? Is it dark matter? the area beyond the 
Hubble Volume, the unborn minds of humans and AI yet to come? Phase space 
Hilbert Space, Anti-De Sitter space??? A future Omega Point, a current or 
future multiverse?? Mar-a-largo in a secret safer? 
I like Wolframs concepts, and have no horse in these discussions, save what my 
be construed as the existential, because, that as a meta goal is seemingly, 
practical ultimately. 

 
Much thanks, Jason. 

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2022 9:20 am
Subject: Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics 
Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings



On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 4:49 AM ronaldheld  wrote:

Is this vaguely related to Tegmark's mathematical structures? 

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-4 Jason wrote:

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
 
I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the type of 
physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with new ways of 
explaining it and some new insights.




It is similar, but I think it is more concretely defined.
Wolfram describes the collection of all formally describable rule based 
systems, leading to a complex structure he calls the Ruliad: 
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/
Unlike Tegmark's idea, Wolfram explains how this structure is vastly 
interconnected and observers within this structure observer certain 
regularities which are necessarily tied to the own nature of the observer 
(their mind and sense organs, etc.), which ultimately defines a set of 
regularities (the laws of physics) for that observer (or observers of that same 
class).
I think there is more similarity between Wolfram's ideas, and those of Bruno 
Marchal and Markus P. Müller, which framed things algorithmically and showed 
how laws of physics can be extracted from the structure of all computations.

Jason-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgasZW%3D5e%3D3unWSOhzMgo_fTO7sz1UB2ix2kezEweRW0A%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10051315.742403.1660422087881%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022, 2:08 PM Joel Dietz  wrote:

>
>>
>> I think there is more similarity between Wolfram's ideas, and those of
>> Bruno Marchal and Markus P. Müller, which framed things algorithmically and
>> showed how laws of physics can be extracted from the structure of all
>> computations.
>>
>>
> Can you give some citations? I don't obviously see how their work overlaps
> with the ruliad.
>
>
I have included relevant quotes and links to sources throughout my page
here:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

You can Ctrl+F and search on that page for Marchal and Müller to find all
the relevant references and passages I have for them.

Both of their theories are based on assuming an ontology of all
computations, and then seeing the what conclusions we could derive about
the character of experience or physical laws from that assumption.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj%3DOdx0MnfSpPYHVWzrXiWP1m19bkvK%2BWtZju0_AkXz6A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings

[Joel Dietz]

>
>
>
> I think there is more similarity between Wolfram's ideas, and those of
> Bruno Marchal and Markus P. Müller, which framed things algorithmically and
> showed how laws of physics can be extracted from the structure of all
> computations.
>
>
Can you give some citations? I don't obviously see how their work overlaps
with the ruliad.




> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgasZW%3D5e%3D3unWSOhzMgo_fTO7sz1UB2ix2kezEweRW0A%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAHWbU%3DarKyQkRQVke9HNnh0KefPr7%3D%2B6GsnTGcgfv%2BztfOOZ%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

[Alan Grayson]

IRREVERSIBILITY is an artifact of the CI, where collapse occurs to an 
eigenstate of the observable being measured. But if the measuring apparatus 
is treated quantum mechanically, all processes associated with measurements 
are unitary and reversible. 

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any 
> time, I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
> PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG
>
> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>
>> *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are 
>>> "reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial 
>>> boundary conditions?*
>>>
>>
>> If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
>> entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
>> and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
>> produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
>> are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
>> astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
>> entropy.
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> 2le
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d204cad9-caff-415d-ad92-9972a2862b1bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 4:49 AM ronaldheld  wrote:

> Is this vaguely related to Tegmark's mathematical structures?
>
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-4 Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
>>
>>
>> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the
>> type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with
>> new ways of explaining it and some new insights.
>>
>>
>>
It is similar, but I think it is more concretely defined.

Wolfram describes the collection of all formally describable rule based
systems, leading to a complex structure he calls the Ruliad:
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/

Unlike Tegmark's idea, Wolfram explains how this structure is vastly
interconnected and observers within this structure observer certain
regularities which are necessarily tied to the own nature of the observer
(their mind and sense organs, etc.), which ultimately defines a set of
regularities (the laws of physics) for that observer (or observers of that
same class).

I think there is more similarity between Wolfram's ideas, and those of
Bruno Marchal and Markus P. Müller, which framed things algorithmically and
showed how laws of physics can be extracted from the structure of all
computations.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgasZW%3D5e%3D3unWSOhzMgo_fTO7sz1UB2ix2kezEweRW0A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is what I wrote:
>>>
>>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to
>>> believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” 
>>> can
>>> exist and be true independently of the universe or someone writing it 
>>> down,
>>> or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t"
>>> to some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
>>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
>>> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>>>
>>
>> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
>> values, or apply rules of inference.
>>
>> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>>
>>
>> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>>
>
> Perhaps conventionally.
>
> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).
>
>
> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5
> for sufficiently large values of 2.
>
>
> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to
> "why quantum mechanics?"
>
>
> One can "account" for anything in words.
>

 Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should
 find themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.


 You don't know that the environment has more than one history.


 If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.


 You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

>>>
>>> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
>>> worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in
>>> their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
>>> infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
>>> plentitude.
>>>
>>>
>>> In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have
>>> only one instance.  There would be no indeterminance.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say they would be distinct?
>>
>>
>> They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are the same
>> universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles.
>>
>
> The universes can be different while the same brain state of a particular
> observer is found between two or more universes.
>
>
> In that case they are distinct universes.  Universes include brains.
>

I think we're talking past each other. Perhaps this passage will help
clarify things:

And it’s very much the same story with the ruliad—and with the laws of
physics. If we constrain the kind of way that we observe—or “parse”—the
ruliad, then it becomes inevitable that the effective laws we’ll see will
have certain features, which turns out apparently to be exactly what’s
needed to reproduce known laws of physics. The full ruliad is in a sense
very wild; but as observers with certain characteristics, we see a much
tamer version of it, and in fact what we see is capable of being described
in terms of laws that we can largely write just in terms of existing
mathematical constructs.


At the outset, we might have imagined that the ruliad would basically just
serve as a kind of dictionary of possible universes—a “universe of all
possible universes” in which each possible universe has different laws. But
the ruliad is in a sense a much more complicated object. Rather than being
a “dictionary” of possible separate universes, it is something that
entangles together all possible universes. The Principle of Computational
Equivalence implies a certain homogeneity to this entangled structure. But
the crucial point is that we don’t “look at this structure from the
outside”: we are instead observers embedded within the structure. And what

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

*> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
> identically, as would any supervening mental states.*


Yes.

 > *However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different
> physical states can give rise to the same mental state.*


True, and in that situation things would not be reversible; a cellular
automation like Conway's LIFE is not reversible and for the same reason.
Something can be 100% deterministic in the forward time dimension but not
in the backward time dimension, but so far at least nobody has any
experimental evidence that fundamental physics has that property,
fundamental physics can't explain why you can't unscramble an egg, you need
more than the laws of physics to explain that you need to invoke initial
conditions. That situation could change if some of Stephen Wolfram's ideas
turn out to be correct, but so far there is no evidence that they are.

 > *The different physical states may then evolve differently giving
> different subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this would mean that your
> next mental state is undetermined. *


You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do
it because sometimes you change your mind at the last second, but there is
nothing profound or mystical in that, a two dollar calculator doesn't know
what it's gonna put up on its screen when you type in 2+2 until it has
finish the calculation.

*> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a
> mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think
> that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the
> main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea
> nonetheless.*


I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will have
gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking himself what
the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never heard a
philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either circular or just
pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before philosophers start
talking about whether human beings have a certain property they first make
clear what that property is, and only after that would it be appropriate to
discuss if humans happen to have that property or not.  I don't demand that
the definition be perfect but I don't think it's too much to ask that they
give me at least a general idea of approximately what the hell they're
talking about when they say "free will".

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


fws



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3tjgdgN5tmHsZxmsVHNctt1rneKMhtGUF-q53Lqu0cTg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings

[ronaldheld]

Is this vaguely related to Tegmark's mathematical structures? 

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-4 Jason wrote:

>
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
>  
>
> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the 
> type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with 
> new ways of explaining it and some new insights.
>
> Jason
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b825aad-4522-4d4e-8f09-d81dd7f17415n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

[Alan Grayson]

That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any time, 
I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG

On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible" 
>> doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary 
>> conditions?*
>>
>
> If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
> entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
> and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
> produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
> are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
> astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
> entropy.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 2le
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/605f3ec1-1476-489e-afff-5a02b8b165ban%40googlegroups.com.